Cricketweb decides....Rules for Entry to Test Status

[Jungle Jumbo]

Corporate sponsorships/advertising revenue?

Corporate sponsorships and advertising will be virtually non-existent unless the game is played at the highest level though or is the main sport in the country it is being played in.

 

[Richard]

Question: how is one to generate money for this professional scene if the national team is not to play at the highest level?

Question: how is playing at the international level and being constantly beaten out of sight going to generate interest from anyone (most significantly TV companies) to pay for games involving said sides?

 

[Richard]

The Intercontinental Cup is the breeding ground for potential Test sides IMO. Winning not just once or twice but several times would suggest that a team is too good to be wallowing with the other Associates and is worth a go at Test level. Would only admit them on a three year trial basis though.

Win FC matches against any 4 of the top 8 test playing nations within 2 years.

Both of you guys have hit the nail on the head, combined. Intercontinental Cup dominance would be a starting-point, but only that - being heads above the other Associates doesn't automatically put you in the Test class. The only way to find-out whether you are is to play them. It's a travesty, though, if one's matches are classed Tests before it's discovered whether you're Test-class or not. (And the same, incidentally, applies to ODIs)

And no, not just one victory - it'd have to be - as BS suggests - over a period of a couple of years and, perhaps not even winning, but merely being competetive. I don't mind if someone goes down or draws, as long as they aren't being wiped out of sight the way Bangladesh almost always are.

This, obviously, following-up from the basic pre-test-yourselves-games requirements that the likes of Kev and Manan have suggested.

This would actually make a fascinating Vox Populi - great idea Kev... what thinkst thou, Mr Gelman?

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Question: how is playing at the international level and being constantly beaten out of sight going to generate interest from anyone (most significantly TV companies) to pay for games involving said sides?

A top-level match is intrinsically better to sell than a "non-international" - in this day and age any Test match is covered on television. Of course the prices are going to be lower for any match involving Bangladesh/Kenya/Ireland (hopefully), but it's still a hefty sight better than zero! It simply isn't possible to set up anything on the scale Kev/Manan wants from the developing countries before they've even started, and indeed, it's never happened (Sri Lanka's provincial cricket is still largely amateur, and depended on the schools system to turn players straight into the national side; Zimbabwe had a similar system; Bangladesh had to build everything from scratch after being amateur, and all other nations were brought into the game when it was essentially a gentlemen's sport where some were lucky enough to get paid a bit.)

Btw, Intercontinental Cup "dominance" is a bit of a ridiculous demand. Surely you'd want more than one country improving at the same time? Thus, if 4-5 countries are fighting evenly in the top of an 8-team Intercontinental Cup and at the same time competing with A sides from top-level countries (which is all you're going to get visiting: it's either that or national teams at 80 % intensity) they won't be promoted.

I can agree that sides would need to play in more well-established neighbouring domestic competitions until the country's cricketing economy is viable enough to run its own professional first-class system, and indeed that they should be able to hold their own in such a competition, which means Ireland is still some way off yet. This isn't possible in every country, though - for one thing the boards are usually fairly exclusive about the standards of their own competition, for another they don't want to sponsor what could be future competitors (turkeys don't vote for Christmas), for a third geography seems to put a stop to things (though why Kenya wanted to play in Zimbabwe instead of South Africa baffles me...)

 

[Richard]

A top-level match is intrinsically better to sell than a "non-international" - in this day and age any Test match is covered on television. Of course the prices are going to be lower for any match involving Bangladesh/Kenya/Ireland (hopefully), but it's still a hefty sight better than zero!

Btw, Intercontinental Cup "dominance" is a bit of a ridiculous demand. Surely you'd want more than one country improving at the same time? Thus, if 4-5 countries are fighting evenly in the top of an 8-team Intercontinental Cup and at the same time competing with A sides from top-level countries (which is all you're going to get visiting: it's either that or national teams at 80 % intensity) they won't be promoted.

I can agree that sides would need to play in more well-established neighbouring domestic competitions until the country's cricketing economy is viable enough to run its own professional first-class system, and indeed that they should be able to hold their own in such a competition, which means Ireland is still some way off yet. This isn't possible in every country, though - for one thing the boards are usually fairly exclusive about the standards of their own competition, for another they don't want to sponsor what could be future competitors (turkeys don't vote for Christmas), for a third geography seems to put a stop to things (though why Kenya wanted to play in Zimbabwe instead of South Africa baffles me...)

Agree about the Intercontinental Cup thing, TBH the thought hadn't occurred to me. It's pretty unlikely more than 1 team at a time will ever become Test-class, though - it hasn't happened yet, has always been 1 at a time.

The question with regards giving non-deserving teams ODI\Test status is "does the damage to the integrity of the game merit the possible long-term pluses?" My answer would be no, TBH - some might (well, do) argue otherwise.

 

[silentstriker]

Question: how is one to generate money for this professional scene if the national team is not to play at the highest level?

They can be associate members and generate money when they have ODI status. You can't give Test status and hope for the best. In the end, if there isn't enough interest to support such infrastructure even after the population sees their ODI team playing on TV, then I don't think it will ever be successful.

 

[roseboy64]

Good stuff so far. I'd tend to agree with Vimesy and SS.

 

[Goughy]

A top-level match is intrinsically better to sell than a "non-international" - in this day and age any Test match is covered on television. Of course the prices are going to be lower for any match involving Bangladesh/Kenya/Ireland (hopefully), but it's still a hefty sight better than zero! It simply isn't possible to set up anything on the scale Kev/Manan wants from the developing countries before they've even started, and indeed, it's never happened (Sri Lanka's provincial cricket is still largely amateur, and depended on the schools system to turn players straight into the national side; Zimbabwe had a similar system;

What I want is a structure. Pro is beneficial but the core is the amateur game that feeds into the Pro system.

What I would want is

a) A min of 3-4 schools that take cricket seriously and put resources and effort into producing cricketers.
b) Local born players learning the game from a young age
c) National U 17 and, U 19 Teams
d) Strong amateur adult cricket leagues
e) A Professional National squad that the amateur game can feed into.

Personally I dont think club cricket or FC cricket has to be professional as long as there is a strong amateur system (schools especially) and as long as there is money available in the National team

For me, once the above are fulfilled then the performance factors should be addressed

 

[Goughy]

Also do people think a stable political environment is an important factor that should be considered? or should cricket ignore such an area as it is outside the scope.

eg ZANU-PF destroying Zims cricket and Chinas human rights issues

 

[chaminda_00]

What I want is a structure. Pro is beneficial but the core is the amateur game that feeds into the Pro system.

What I would want is

a) A min of 3-4 schools that take cricket seriously and put resources and effort into producing cricketers.
b) Local born players learning the game from a young age
c) National U 17 and, U 19 Teams
d) Strong amateur adult cricket leagues
e) A Professional National squad that the amateur game can fed into.

Personally I dont think club cricket or FC cricket has to be professional as long as there is a strong amateur system (schools especially) and as long as there is money available in the National team

The interesting thing is when you look at countries like Uganda and Nepal they have those bolded cases covered, but struggle at open age level i.e d) and e). But really those type of countries need more help from South Africa and India respectively to improve the quality of adult cricket and allow their national team to get matches, even just against club sides.

The flip side is a team like UAE who have d) and e) covered except the feding bit. But have little or no youth development.

Then you have a team like Bermuda who have a decent domestic structure, but lack quality youth cricketers coming through even though the structure not that bad. Its just that like West Indies a lot of talented cricketers choose other sports like Athetics where they have better financial options.

 

[Richard]

Also do people think a stable political environment is an important factor that should be considered? or should cricket ignore such an area as it is outside the scope.

eg ZANU-PF destroying Zims cricket and Chinas human rights issues

By common consent isolation of China has\will have a disastrous global effect, which like it or not (and I'm sure most don't) has to impact on how they're treated. Zimbabwe do not have this caveat, and obviously if the situation of govornment\political environment makes it impossible for anything in the country (cricket included) to grow, there's no point wasting anything (money or unwarranted international status) on them.

 

[Richard]

They can be associate members and generate money when they have ODI status. You can't give Test status and hope for the best. In the end, if there isn't enough interest to support such infrastructure even after the population sees their ODI team playing on TV, then I don't think it will ever be successful.

You can't give ODI status and hope for the best IMO.

 

[silentstriker]

You can't give ODI status and hope for the best IMO.

Why not? Ideally, that way at least the shorter formats serve a purpose. If they don't become competitive after a certain period of time, you can take it away of course.

 

[SJS]

ICC has to allow a side that is considered close to being considered for test status to tour one of the major test playing countries, say England and playagainst the first class sides.

This was what was done in the past. It may mean some adjustment to the schedules but if adding more teams over time is considered a desirable thing, they have to make provision for them to be tested at some reasonable level.

If they do compete on favourable terms at that level they should move to the next step of active consideration.

Associate member sides playing in the first class circuits of one of the major test playing countries is another option. Its not as difficult as it is made out to be - the rescheduling problems.

This doesntbhave to be done tomorrow with no prior intimation to the country where they will tour or in whose domestic circuit they will play. Planned in advance it is possible and gives them a fair chance and a reasonable platform to display their prowess.

Any process which takes people into test format without testing them in a somewhat longer format against at least frst class sides will mean we will do nothing but take massive chances with lowering test standards.

 

[stumpski]

I don't see Holland, Scotland or Ireland being admitted to the County Championship any time soon, for one thing, the English players would be very unhappy at the extra travelling involved, though I'm not saying that should be a primary consideration - but I would like to see them playing a few three or four day matches a season against county sides and I'd have no problem with such games being given f-c status. Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe both undertook tours of England in their pre-Test days. Always a problem in such a congested season, though. And counties tend to field under-strength sides against 'A' teams as it is.

 

[SJS]

I don't see Holland, Scotland or Ireland being admitted to the County Championship any time soon, for one thing, the English players would be very unhappy at the extra travelling involved, though I'm not saying that should be a primary consideration - but I would like to see them playing a few three or four day matches a season against county sides and I'd have no problem with such games being given f-c status. Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe both undertook tours of England in their pre-Test days. Always a problem in such a congested season, though. And counties tend to field under-strength sides against 'A' teams as it is.

You completely misunderstand as have some others. I am nnot talking of any country sides joinging the county circuit. I am talking of them touring England in the summer like Australia, India, Pakistan etc used to do. They played first class matches against the county sides. Here is a schedule from onr of those tours.

Tour Directory

West Indies in England, 1976​

• Surrey v West Indians at The Oval, 12-14 May 1976
• Hampshire v West Indians at Southampton, 15-17 May 1976
• Kent v West Indians at Canterbury, 19-21 May 1976
• Marylebone Cricket Club v West Indians at Lord's, 22-25 May 1976
• Somerset v West Indians at Taunton, 26-28 May 1976
• Sussex v West Indians at Hove, 29 May-1 Jun 1976
• Combined Universities v West Indians at Cambridge, 9-11 Jun 1976
• Lancashire v West Indians at Manchester, 12-14 Jun 1976
• Northamptonshire v West Indians at Northampton, 23-25 Jun 1976
• Leicestershire v West Indians at Leicester, 26-29 Jun 1976
• Yorkshire v West Indians at Sheffield, 30 Jun-2 Jul 1976
• Derbyshire v West Indians at Chesterfield, 3-6 Jul 1976
• Warwickshire v West Indians at Birmingham, 17-20 Jul 1976
• Essex v West Indians at Chelmsford, 28-30 Jul 1976
• Middlesex v West Indians at Lord's, 31 Jul-3 Aug 1976
• Minor Counties v West Indians at Torquay, 4-6 Aug 1976
• Glamorgan v West Indians at Swansea, 7-10 Aug 1976
• Glamorgan v West Indians at Swansea, 8 Aug 1976
• Worcestershire v West Indians at Worcester, 18-20 Aug 1976
• Gloucestershire v West Indians at Bristol, 21-24 Aug 1976
• Nottinghamshire v West Indians at Nottingham, 1-3 Sep 1976
• TN Pearce's XI v West Indians at Scarborough, 4-7 Sep 1976

​

 

[SJS]

Sri Lanka , for example, made several tours to India, England etc before they got a test status.

Below is the schedule of their 1975 tour to India.

Sri Lanka in India, 1975-76

1. Central Zone v Sri Lanka at Kanpur, 31 Oct - 2 Nov 1975
2. North Zone v Sri Lanka at New Delhi, 4-6 Nov 1975
3. Unofficial Test: India v Sri Lanka at Hyderabad, 8-11 Nov 1975
4. West Zone v Sri Lanka at Bombay, 14-16 Nov 1975
5. Unofficial Test: India v Sri Lanka at Ahmedabad, 18-21 Nov 1975
6. East Zone v Sri Lanka at Calcutta, 23-25 Nov 1975
7. Unofficial Test: India v Sri Lanka at Nagpur, 28 Nov - 1 Dec 1975
8. Combined Universities v Sri Lanka at Bangalore, 5-7 Dec 1975
9. South Zone v Sri Lanka at Madras, 9-10 Dec 1975

I remember the three unofficial tests they played against India. They lost 2-0 but were far from disgraced. They drew against four of the five zonal side (each zonal side is made up of players from 4-5 first class sides) and lost only to SouthZone in a low scoring match.

The side had Dilip Mendis and Roy Dias who were superb batsmen and in DS D'Silva and Opatha they had world class bowlers. It was another seven years before they played an official test match.

 

[andruid]

Trouble is how many associates can afford tours like those on their shoestring budgets.
Still a novel idea

 

[SJS]

Trouble is how many associates can afford tours like those on their shoestring budgets.
Still a novel idea

Thats where ICC has to chip in. If they want the game to spread farand wide, they cant expect it to happen without them playing an important role. There job cant be just to 'allot' a test status.

 

[Sanz]

Sri Lanka , for example, made several tours to India, England etc before they got a test status.

Below is the schedule of their 1975 tour to India.

Sri Lanka in India, 1975-76

1. Central Zone v Sri Lanka at Kanpur, 31 Oct - 2 Nov 1975
2. North Zone v Sri Lanka at New Delhi, 4-6 Nov 1975
3. Unofficial Test: India v Sri Lanka at Hyderabad, 8-11 Nov 1975
4. West Zone v Sri Lanka at Bombay, 14-16 Nov 1975
5. Unofficial Test: India v Sri Lanka at Ahmedabad, 18-21 Nov 1975
6. East Zone v Sri Lanka at Calcutta, 23-25 Nov 1975
7. Unofficial Test: India v Sri Lanka at Nagpur, 28 Nov - 1 Dec 1975
8. Combined Universities v Sri Lanka at Bangalore, 5-7 Dec 1975
9. South Zone v Sri Lanka at Madras, 9-10 Dec 1975

I remember the three unofficial tests they played against India. They lost 2-0 but were far from disgraced. They drew against four of the five zonal side (each zonal side is made up of players from 4-5 first class sides) and lost only to SouthZone in a low scoring match.

The side had Dilip Mendis and Roy Dias who were superb batsmen and in DS D'Silva and Opatha they had world class bowlers. It was another seven years before they played an official test match.

Very Spot on.